Why is the Chicago "Blaccent" More Southern than Boston/NYC/Philly's? (Harrisburg: gated, living)

[BajanYankee]

But I still don't get it.

Chicago had southern blacks. NYC had southern blacks. Are Mississippi and Alabama blacks more southern than South and North Carolina blacks, thus making it harder to rid the southern accent?

Chicago is (was) segregated. NYC is (was) segregated.

Chicago had ethnic whites. NYC had ethnic whites.

So I still don't see what would produce such a marked difference in the way each group speaks. Some people have said it's because of Caribbean and West African blacks, but New York is merely one of many cities in the Northeast. Yes, it is the biggest, but there are also cities like Reading, Harrisburg, Buffalo, E. Trenton, Paterson, Allentown, Philly, etc. that don't have a huge Caribbean population.

[DAS]

Yes Mississippi and Alabama are much more Southern. The states that Black people migrated from to Chicago were and still are poorer than the states that people migrated from to NYC. The history of those states is different as well. The history after the civil war is different. The Black people suffered all through out the South but in those States it was the worse.

Blacks really practiced in NYC to loose the accent especially when away from home and trying to get work. It was more detrimental to your survival in NYC to have it, you had to conduct yourself a certain way just to get a housekeeping job. Probably the same in Chicago but NYC was more severe.

Chicagos segregation is more severe than NYC.

Yes the Caribbean accent has a lot of influence in NY. I don't think West Africa's matters because they are more recent arrivals. AA and Caribbean came together except the last migration after the civil rights laws passed.

To a NYC AA the people in the places you are naming in your last paragraph sound more southern than Chicago. But it is not really southern just a different accent. To you it may sound like the NE is less southern. NYC is just different in all ways from anywhere else in the US. Chicago is the closest to us in all ways, we have the most in common with Chicago than any other city. But they get to live better and cheaper while doing it all in Chicago.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by DAS

To a NYC AA the people in the places you are naming in your last paragraph sound more southern than Chicago.

[MichiVegas]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Yes, it is the biggest, but there are also cities like Reading, Harrisburg, Buffalo, E. Trenton, Paterson, Allentown, Philly, etc. that don't have a huge Caribbean population.

I think those cities actually do have a larger West Indian population you see in the Midwest, and it probably does play a role in differences in accents.

And "The South" is not a uniform area. Blacks who came from "The South" in NYC and Chicago came from totally different regions. North Carolina and Virginia are different from Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi.

[reppin_the_847]

I'd have to agree. I think that with the exception of Buffalo, the other cities he mentioned (Reading, Harrisburg, E. Trenton, Paterson, Allentown, Philly, etc) are pretty close to the coast and still trace their roots to states such as the Carolinas & Virginia.

Originally Posted by MichiVegas

I think those cities actually do have a larger West Indian population you see in the Midwest, and it probably does play a role in differences in accents.

And "The South" is not a uniform area. Blacks who came from "The South" in NYC and Chicago came from totally different regions. North Carolina and Virginia are different from Arkansas, Alabama, and Mississippi.

[treemoni]

Originally Posted by DAS

Chicagos segregation is more severe than NYC.

Yes, I think the OP is severely underestimating just how segregated Chicago is. The south and west sides are pretty much where black people live. I am not that familiar with how the south side is broken down, but anything past the White Sox stadium is almost exclusively black. Beverly (where some blacks live) is not even accessible by the Red Line.

There was and isn't a lot of race mixing in Chicago. In NYC it is inevitable that people will mix on public transportation. In Chicago, a white person can live on the North side their whole lives and have very limited exposure to people of color. I don't believe that's true in New York.

[reppin_the_847]

This is true, but the Red Line is the one train line that both folks in the north side, downtown & south sides use. I think this whole mixing argument goes way beyond public transportation though. Your point about white yuppies in Chicago interacting very little with minorities is interesting. But then again, one can argue that trust fund babies in the Upper East Side of Manhattan never venture north of 110th Street (into Harlem) or into other boroughs like the Bronx.

In NYC, there are people from many nationalities & countries that happen to make a lot of money. The segregation seems to be more socioeconomic-based than race-based. In Chicago, the segregation seems to be rooted historically in terms of race, but more recently in terms of socioeconomics as well.

Originally Posted by treemoni

Yes, I think the OP is severely underestimating just how segregated Chicago is. The south and west sides are pretty much where black people live. I am not that familiar with how the south side is broken down, but anything past the White Sox stadium is almost exclusively black. Beverly (where some blacks live) is not even accessible by the Red Line.

There was and isn't a lot of race mixing in Chicago. In NYC it is inevitable that people will mix on public transportation. In Chicago, a white person can live on the North side their whole lives and have very limited exposure to people of color. I don't believe that's true in New York.

[treemoni]

People always use the "socioeconomic vs. race" but I think it's because they don't want to admit that racism is still alive and well. Harlem is gentrifying. I am not in NYC so I can't say the extent, but it's no longer the Harlem that people think of when they think of NYC.

A black comedian tried to buy a home in Bridgeport and was denied. This happened this decade. Money does not make people less prone to racism, or less racist. People are just a *tiny* bit better at concealing their racist views/actions.

[DAS]

Originally Posted by treemoni

People always use the "socioeconomic vs. race" but I think it's because they don't want to admit that racism is still alive and well. Harlem is gentrifying. I am not in NYC so I can't say the extent, but it's no longer the Harlem that people think of when they think of NYC.

A black comedian tried to buy a home in Bridgeport and was denied. This happened this decade. Money does not make people less prone to racism, or less racist. People are just a *tiny* bit better at concealing their racist views/actions.

Harlem was always economically diverse. It was just predominately Black and East Harlem predominately Latin.

There were wealthy blocks and blocks that were slummed. Most of it was working class. The sections that were slummed that were filmed in the Shaft movie, have been torn down and mostly replaced with luxury condos. However these condos are across the street from projects.

Other sections of Harlem have White residents but they are not gentrifiers, they are in the same economic group as the Black and Latin people they live around.

Harlem is in Manhattan so it is close to downtown but cheaper to live in than downtown, but still relatively expensive. There is also a lot of projects and other low income housing all around Harlem.

Some buildings have turned condo and coop one apt at a time, as people move, or pass away the apts are renovated and sold.

It's funny but Harlem in many ways is still Harlem because the White people that move in are mostly young and from the Midwest. They live 3-6 in an apt depending on the size, just to get the NYC live work experience. They say once they have NYC experience on their resumes they can move elsewhere and make a good salary. They don't think of Harlem as home and hope to make money and leave.

Many young Black people can't afford Harlem anymore or the rest of NYC for that matter. I think it will change alot in another 5 years. Most AA's that are southern descendants have left the city. Many that are left are mixed with Caribbean or African. Black people mostly live single, couples, or as a family, not as much as roommates.

[mjtinmemphis]

Originally Posted by treemoni

People always use the "socioeconomic vs. race" but I think it's because they don't want to admit that racism is still alive and well. Harlem is gentrifying. I am not in NYC so I can't say the extent, but it's no longer the Harlem that people think of when they think of NYC.

A black comedian tried to buy a home in Bridgeport and was denied. This happened this decade. Money does not make people less prone to racism, or less racist. People are just a *tiny* bit better at concealing their racist views/actions.

I agree totally.

The thought that upper class Blacks don't experience racism in Chicago is a bunch of mess.

There is racism everywhere even in NYC. The impact on the culture of the city is what I don't know because I never lived there. According to the rankings done most recently, NYC is more segregated than Chicago.

The Bridgeport situation is just one example that could have happened in any city but seems more prevalent here. Unfortunately professional Whites don't mix with professional Blacks in Chicago like I've seen in other places. Much of that is due to the segregation of Blacks. I've also noticed an overwhelming majority of Blacks who live here are from here. Chicago doesn't retain Black professional transplants like DC, Houston or even a "Raleigh" type city. Many are turned off by the segregation and the weirdness factor that comes from the culture that embracesses it and states its social economic.